Only freedom will do

AlexLK

Doesn't sound like there's a lot left to do.

:rotfl: I know all too well that price seems to be the first consideration for a lot of people when buying furniture. I used to run a business selling bespoke furniture. Enjoyed it for a while but dealing with unrealistic and unreasonable customers wasn't much fun.

Decent furniture will last hundreds of years and if you've the craft skills to take care of it or be willing to spend a few pennies, there's no reason for it to be hidden away. You may be passed the table your father bought and in turn pass it to your daughter for she to enjoy and pass to her children. Good furniture like that table will last for many generations.

edinburgher

Decent furniture will last hundreds of years and if you've the craft skills to take care of it or be willing to spend a few pennies, there's no reason for it to be hidden away. You may be passed the table your father bought and in turn pass it to your daughter for she to enjoy and pass to her children. Good furniture like that table will last for many generations.

I feel you're fundamentally missing my point re. marginal utility. People don't buy Ike@ furniture just because it's affordable. It's because it's affordable, looks fine in all but the most rarefied of settings and is functional (a table will retain that inherent air of tableyness). A bespoke table may do nothing for them - they may rather have a nice garden, a car, or money in the bank!

Said table will need to be disposed of after a divorce, suspect he will get pennies on the pound for what was paid for it originally.

Inheriting large, unwieldy pieces of dated furniture can be more of a curse than a blessing. Another example, FIL made DD a 'toy chest' that despite being a lovely hardwood chest, is ridiculously proportioned, takes 2 grown men to lift and covers 50% of our landing!

'Gifts' like that smack of the giver's need to control the destiny of their children (i.e. you'll have a house just like mine, enjoy the same style of things etc.) I think you'd understand that more than most Alex? Nothing wrong with a few treasured items being passed down, but most recipients would (I suspect) receive something a bit more fungible.

AlexLK

edinburgher wrote: »

I feel you're fundamentally missing my point re. marginal utility. People don't buy Ike@ furniture just because it's affordable. It's because it's affordable, looks fine in all but the most rarefied of settings and is functional (a table will retain that inherent air of tableyness). A bespoke table may do nothing for them - they may rather have a nice garden, a car, or money in the bank!

Said table will need to be disposed of after a divorce, suspect he will get pennies on the pound for what was paid for it originally.

Inheriting large, unwieldy pieces of dated furniture can be more of a curse than a blessing. Another example, FIL made DD a 'toy chest' that despite being a lovely hardwood chest, is ridiculously proportioned, takes 2 grown men to lift and covers 50% of our landing!

'Gifts' like that smack of the giver's need to control the destiny of their children (i.e. you'll have a house just like mine, enjoy the same style of things etc.) I think you'd understand that more than most Alex? Nothing wrong with a few treasured items being passed down, but most recipients would (I suspect) receive something a bit more fungible.

I can understand how such furniture can work in a post-WW2 setting but disagree about it working in all but the most rarefied as I cannot see how it could work in a prewar house. One of the tenants lives in a late eighteenth-century stone cottage. It's a lovely little house; kitchen and bathroom have been sympathetically designed and it retains lots of nice features. It is by no stretch of the imagination a grand house but such furniture would look really out of place, in my opinion. However, the same is true of a postwar house full of Georgian furniture.

Until reading this I had not considered the potential of the giver needing to control. However, thank you, I think I've had a bit of a lightbulb moment.

edinburgher

Modern furniture/extensions are all the rage in/on period properties. I am surrounded by lovely properties ranging from very late 1800s up to 1930s that are having stark 'architectural' extensions added, the effect can be stunning if you get it right.

You won't read the free papers they tend to give out at train stations/on buses, but mixing old and new is very much the in thing. The hipsters are all over it.

Personally I'd prefer one or the other, but there are some areas where modern technologies are far superior to what went before. I'm sure that your restored sash and case windows look fantastic, but you can get triple glazed modern replicas that are identical unless you were able to walk up to them and feel the surrounds (and with timber frames, even this difference would be missing).

The modern makes it possible for us to have warmer, quieter and more efficient homes, without losing the appeal of what went before. But I suppose that's another discussion

AlexLK

My personal tastes do not change based on what's all the rage. I'm not really interested in passing fashions and personally think those extending properties in a vastly different style to the original build will find they look awfully dated in years to come. Style never goes out of fashion but lots of fashions go out of style. However, I accept that once someone has bought a property they are free to do as they wish in most circumstances.

Modern replacements can never look or be quite the same; I've never lived in a house built in the 20th Century, let alone postwar, so I suppose I don't miss things that I have not experienced. Others, I'm sure, have perhaps only lived in postwar properties and appreciate the features such properties come with.

edinburgher

Modern replacements can never look or be quite the same; I've never lived in a house built in the 20th Century, let alone postwar, so I suppose I don't miss things that I have not experienced.

Then you can't tell

Suffolk_lass

There are lots of medieval properties around here with Georgian fascias. Most people see a Georgian house but the smaller, lower ceilings and smaller rooms sit behind. They are mostly listed, despite their different generational modifications. From a purist architectural perspective it feels wrong, but historically it is fascinating to see the times that things were done. I think the modern extensions are simply the 21st century version of the Georgian facade and will add, rather than detract from the history. I rather like some of the modern extensions to older houses. They can be aesthetically pleasing, and well-built, using modern innovations and high-value qualities like insulation and light. They therefore make the property more fitting to 21st Century living, keeping them relevant. 1960s and 1970s modifications to 19th Century stock excepted, I'm in favour.

AlexLK

SL, I can understand your point of view. Historically speaking it is quite interesting to see how people changed the places they lived.

I suppose my main issue is with late 20th / 21st Century architecture as I find it mostly industrial, clinical and devoid of character.

edinburgher

Exhausted!

Took DD swimming this morning, went back 2 hours later for my gym induction, had a workout, did some housework and then went to Ike@ in the evening (Alex would love my £5 folding chair for the study (plastic seat)) :rotfl:

I burned approximately a million calories and despite having a 2 course dinner in the Ike@ cafe (£17.75 worth of free food between us thanks to MSE :money:), still have something like 1400-1500 calories left for the day. Might be a few glasses of wine

slowlyfading

What an excellent position to be in at the end of the day